Talk:Love the One You're With

Bob Seger's version
What about the version from Smokin' O.P.S.? added 1/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.157.62 (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Already in the article, added wikilinks to Bob Seger and Smokin' O.P.'s. GoingBatty (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Aretha's version
Aretha Franklin's version (as captured in the Aretha_Live_at_Fillmore_West recording) is notable for another reason: the organist is Billy Preston. Full circle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.203.208 (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I added this to the article - thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Bucks Fizz
I requested that Tuzapicabit post a new Talk thread regarding his/her content on this page on the band Bucks Fizz but it appears he/she reverted my edit (again) rather than to put this on Talk and simply posted something on my page...

As I've said in my edit notes, my stance has nothing to do with the band or anyone's POV of the group. The notability is based on THAT SONG and its inclusion should be based on Notability and DUE (among other things). It peaked at #47 therefore it is by definition "Not Notable" - doesn't matter how many people wrote it up, whether it was a followup to a hit single, or anything. The weight and notability is based upon how important it was as a single. Since it topped off at #47 in the British charts (and didn't even touch the US charts), its notability as a song is nil. As further note corroborating this, the band's Wiki page has ZERO about this song - either good or bad - so the editor's stance that it was an important follow-up hit or that its failure lead to the dissolution of the band also doesn't seem to hold water. Ckruschke (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * I'm afraid I think you're wrong on just about every count here. The entry on the Bucks Fizz version has nothing to do with POV, it states the facts (with references). Saying it peaked at #47 makes it not notable (by definition) is incorrect since the very policy states: "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts" (which this version did). How important it was as a single? Well, in any band's career, the follow-up to a top ten comeback hit is very important, which in this band's case - this was the one, and yes, the band's page does mention it (a passing reference, but since that article is about their entire career, obviously less mention will be made than here). As for undue weight - that policy doesn't work in this case (feel free to expand the other sections if you so wish, rather than deleting merely to create balance), and Stand alone list has nothing whatsoever to do with the information posted.


 * To sum up, your argument totally relies on its chart position, which as I've already pointed out satisfies notability, but then given your own beliefs take a look at Till There Was You. Half the page is taken up with The Beatles version which was never released as a single so has no chart appearance at all - therefore by your definition cannot be written about or included. (In fact The Beatles did a few cover versions, so good luck with all your deleting on those). Thank you for your time and prompting me to improve (I hope) the article.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong agreement with Ckruschke. This seems like an advertisement for somebody's pet band. The fact that the entry for a band I've never heard of its three times as long as the main entry for the writer and well-known original recording of the song says it all. Bucks Fizz could certainly be included in a list of cover versions, but there should be no standalone section unless that cover version was known for some reason or other, and it isn't. If we used the Bucks Fizz standard, some pages would have hundreds of entries for cover versions that few have heard of, after a few lines about how great "Something" by The Beatles is. Not. 96.253.72.159 (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The fault is that the main section isn't longer is because nobody has added further information to it. That is up to you if you wish it to be longer. In this case, there is plenty of room for expansion on other versions. Your claim that you have never heard of this band is neither here nor there. The band is notable and the section here is fully backed up with references.Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we're a good bit off track here. Whether the song is or is not "important" is not relevant. The question is whether or not it is notable. The guideline in question, WP:NSONG, essentially states that the cover version should be included if and only if the cover song itself would qualify for an article if the original song did not exist. So, to be included the cover should be "the subject[1] of multiple,[2] non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label."


 * Notability aside, there needs to be sufficient sourced material for a reasonably detailed article. Given the argument that there is too much material about the cover, we're probably on solid ground with this section.


 * Yes, having charted "suggests" that it "may be notable".


 * Boiling it all down, WP:GNG pretty much rules the day. IMO, we need sources that are either 1) primarily about the cover version and fairly detailed or 2) about the song and give non-trivial coverage about the cover version. An article about the band with some info about the song is not enough, in that a fairly detailed article about the band or the album will likely discuss all of the singles, whether notable or not.


 * I wrote up to here before really looking at the section and was rather expecting it would be pretty much fine as it was.


 * Looking at what we have, some of the sources are weak.
 * I have no idea what chartstats.com was. Given that it is a dead link, I have a feeling it was someones WP:SPS repeating chart info, possibly with their opinions. That it was "make or break" seems to be either drawn from thin air or from a SPS. That it charted should cite a reliable source for that point, but that's all it will likely tell us.
 * The Bucks Fizz Story DVD is clearly not independent. I'd take it as reliable, but not adding anything as far as notability.
 * I have no idea what raffem.com is, it looks to be nothing more than a blog and should be excluded.
 * The images of the covers at raffem.com should not be cited. For openers, unless the site has a credible claim of permission, their use is a copyright violation which we cannot use. More to the point, the pressings were widely released so there is no need for a cite for info taken from the cover. The covers, of course, are not independent sources: reliable, but not an indication of notability.
 * This leaves Number One. I don't see anything to indicate this was the most reliable of sources, but it's not saying much of consequence either. By itself, I'd say this source is a toss-up. If the material in question were in something clearly reliable and prominent it would help with the notability question. As it is, I get the impression the magazine, with a weekly publication schedule, likely took what material they could get, with A&R reps "helping" considerably.


 * Yes, I have heard of Bucks Fizz. I cannot say I know anything by them. I'm guessing their limited popularity coincided with my college years or shortly thereafter. I don't see that as relevant, though.


 * The sourcing for this section is very poor, IMO. Most of it should be yanked without little debate. What little would be salvageable would seem to be little more than an "it existed" kind of statement. IMO, we should scrap most of that section along with most of the "Other versions" section. The exception there would be the version by Chantoozies, which peaked at #21 in Australia. IMO, the "Other versions" section can easily briefly mention both the Chantoozies and Bucks Fizz versions briefly and move on. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 one external links on Love the One You're With. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=13650

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Band's opinion of the song
I've seen several interviews with Stills & CSNY in which they express their ongoing disdain for this song. Most recently, the Dan Rather "Big Interview" episode. In one of the interviews, they describe it as the albatross around their necks. But because it's a crowd favorite, they're obliged to perform it. Should some mention be made of this in the top 2 paragraphs of the article? Steve8394 (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

In culture
This sentence: "Idris Elba sings a short phrase from the song after describing a possibly fictional account of how his squeezebox used to belong to Stills." Why on Earth use the phrase "possibly fictional?" Prometheus is literally a science fiction movie. Fixing it. O0drogue0o (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Song
i always thought it was by fleetwood mac. Wow TheSOB (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)